April 30-May 19 (May 13-June 1), 1907

7

Concluding Remarks on the Report on the Attitude
Towards Bourgeois Parties
May 14 (27)

Ishall begin with the question of the stand taken by the Polish delegation,
which has been touched on here. The Polish comrades were
accused—particularly by the Bundists—of being inconsistent in
agreeing to our resolution, having themselves declared it unsatisfactory at the
commission. Such accusations are founded on a very simple subterfuge—an
evasion of the substance of those questions that confront the Congress
on the given item of the agenda. Those who do not want to evade any discussion
on the substance of the question will easily see that we Bolsheviks have always
seen eye to eye with the Poles on two fundamental questions. First of all we
agree on the fact that, for the sake of its socialist tasks, the proletariat
must categorically retain its class individuality with respect to all the other
(bourgeois) parties, however revolutionary they may be, however democratic the
republic they advocate. Secondly, we agree that it is the right and duty of the
workers’ party to assume leadership of the petty-bourgeois democratic parties,
including the peasant parties, not only in the struggle against the autocracy,
but also against the treacherous liberal bourgeoisie.

Inthe resolution on the report of the Social-Democratic group in the Duma,
which the Polish comrades have presented to the Congress, these ideas and
propositions are expressed with the utmost clarity. The resolution speaks
forthrightly of the need for Social-Democracy to preserve its class character
distinct from all other parties, down to the Socialist-
Revolutionaries. It speaks openly of the possibility and necessity of joint
action by the Social-Democrats and the Trudovik groups against the
liberals. This is what we in Russia call a Left bloc, or a Left bloc policy.

Fromthis it is clear that we are united with the Poles by genuine solidarity on
the fundamental points in the question of the attitude towards bourgeois
parties. To deny this or to speak of the contradictory behaviour of the Poles
would be to evade a straightforward presentation of differences of opinion in
principle.

Thesocialist aims of the proletariat keep it distinct from all parties, even
the most revolutionary and republican; then there is the proletariat’s
leadership in the struggle of all revolutionary democrats in the present
revolution—can it be denied that these are the fundamental and guiding
ideas in both the Polish and Bolshevik resolutions?

Afew words about Trotsky. I have no time to dwell here on our differences with
him. I shall only note that in his book In Defence of the Party Trotsky
expressed, in print, his solidarity with Kautsky, who wrote about the economic
community of interests between the proletariat and the peasantry in the present
revolution in Russia. Trotsky acknowledged the permissibility and usefulness of
a Left bloc against the liberal bourgeoisie. These facts are sufficient for me
to acknowledge that Trotsky has come closer to our views. Quite apart from the
question of “uninterrupted revolution”, we have here solidarity on
fundamental points in the question of the attitude towards bourgeois parties.

ComradeLieber has most energetically accused me of excluding even the Trudoviks
from the bourgeois-democratic allies of the proletariat. Lieber has again been
carried away by phrases, and has paid insufficient attention to the substance
of the dispute. I did not speak of excluding joint action with the Trudoviks,
but of the need to cut ourselves off from the Trudoviks’
vacillation. We must not fear to “isolate” ourselves from them
when they are inclined to drag along in the wake of the Cadets. We must
ruthlessly expose the Trudoviks when they fail to take the consistent stand of
revolutionary democrats. One of two things, Comrade Lieber—either the
workers’ party will pursue a genuinely
independent proletarian policy, in which case we allow of joint action with part
of the bourgeoisie only when it, this section, accepts our
policy, and not vice versa; or our talk about the independence of the
proletariat’s class struggle remains nothing but idle talk.

LikeLieber, Plekhanov too evaded the substance of the dispute, only in another
way. Plekhanov spoke about Rosa Luxemburg, picturing her as a Madonna reclining
on clouds. What could be finer! Elegant, gallant and effective polemics.... But
I would nevertheless like to ask Plekhanov:
Madonna or not,—but what do you think about the substance of the
question? (Applause from the Centre and the Bolsheviks.) After all, it
is a pretty bad thing to have to resort to a Madonna in order to avoid analysing
the point at issue. Madonna or not—what must our attitude be towards
“a Duma with full powers”? What is this? Does this resemble Marxism, does
it resemble the independent policy of the proletariat?

“Agreementsfrom occasion to occasion”, both Lieber and Plekhanov
reiterate to us in all sorts of ways. An extremely convenient formula this, but
utterly lacking in principle. It is absolutely devoid of content. After all,
comrades, we too permit of agreements with the Trudoviks under certain
conditions and also only from occasion to occasion, absolutely from
occasion to occasion. We shall willingly include these words in our resolution
as well.

Butthat is not the question. The question is what joint actions are
permissible from occasion to occasion, with whom, and for what purposes! Both
Plekhanov, with his gallant witticisms, and Lieber with his empty pathetics,
have slurred over and obscured these significant questions. And this question is
not a theoretical one, but an extremely vital and practical issue. We have seen
from experience what the famous agreements from occasion to occasion, the famous
“technical” agreements, mean among the Mensheviks! They mean a
policy of the dependence of the working class on the liberals, and nothing
else. “From occasion to occasion” is a poor cloak for this
opportunist policy.

Plekhanovquoted passages from the works of Marx, on the need to support the
bourgeoisie. It is a pity that he did not quote from the Neue Rheinische
Zeitung. A pity that
he forgot how Marx “supported” the liberals during the period when
the bourgeois revolution in Germany was at its height. Nor is it necessary
to go so far to prove something that is indisputable. The old
Iskra, too, frequently spoke of the necessity for the
Social-Democratic Labour Party to support the liberals—even the
Marshals of the Nobility. In the period preceding the bourgeois revolution,
when Social-Democracy still had to rouse the people to political life, this
was quite legitimate. Today, when various classes have already appeared on
the scene, when, on the one hand, a peasant revolutionary movement has
revealed itself, and there have been liberal betrayals on the
other—today there can be no question of our supporting the
liberals. We are all agreed that the Social-Democrats must now demand the
confiscation of landed estates. And what is the attitude of the liberals
towards this?

Plekhanovsaid: all classes that are in the least progressive must become tools
in the hands of the proletariat. I do not doubt that this is Plekhanov’s
desire. But I assert that in practice the Menshevik policy leads, not to this,
but to something quite different. In every case during the past year, when the
Mensheviks were supposedly supporting the Cadets, the Mensheviks themselves were
actually tools in the hands of the Cadets. The same was true of the support for
the demand for a Duma ministry and at the time of the election blocs with the
Cadets. Experience has shown that in these cases the proletariat proved to be
the tool, despite the “desires” of Plekhanov and other
Mensheviks. This is quite apart from the “Duma with full powers” and
the voting for Golovin.

Wemust realise in all seriousness that the liberal bourgeoisie has entered
upon the counter-revolutionary path, and we must struggle against them. Only
then will the policy of the workers’ party become an independent revolutionary
policy, not one in word alone. Only then shall we systematically exert our
influence on both the petty bourgeoisie and the peasantry, who are hesitating
between liberalism and revolutionary struggle.

Therewas no point to the complaint made here about the incorrectness of our
thesis on the liberals’ deception of the petty bourgeoisie. Not only our
revolution, but the experience
of other countries, too, has shown that it is by deceit that liberalism
maintains its influence in many sections of the population. It is our plain duty
to fight to free those sections from the influence of the liberals. In the
course of decades the German Social-Democratic Party has fought to
destroy—and has destroyed, in Berlin, for instance—the liberals’
influence on broad sections of the population. We can and must achieve the same,
and deprive the Cadets of their democratic adherents.

Letme give you an example of what the Menshevik policy of supporting the Cadets
has led to. In the Menshevik news paper Russkaya Zhizn of February 22,
1907 (No. 45), an unsigned, that is, an editorial, article said the following
about Golovin’s election and his speech: “The Chairman of the State
Duma has undertaken a great and responsible task—to say such words as will
embody the principal demands and needs of our 140 million people.... Not for a
moment could Mr. Golovin rise above the level of a member of the Cadet Party,
and become the exponent of the will of the en tire Duma”. Don’t you
see how edifying this is? The Mensheviks derive the responsible task of the
liberal—to speak on behalf of the “people”—simply from their
having support ed him with their votes. This is just handing over ideological
and political leadership to liberalism. This is complete abandonment of the
class point of view. And I say: if under a Left bloc any Social-Democrat would
dream of writing about the responsible task of a Trudovik to reflect the needs
of “labour”, I would whole-heartedly support the most resolute
censure of such a Social-Democrat. The Mensheviks have here an ideological bloc
with the Cadets, and we must permit no such blocs with anyone, even with the
Socialist-Revolutionaries.

Incidentally,Martynov stated that we are descending to such a bloc when we
speak of all the land and full freedom. This is not true. Let me remind you of
the Menshevik Sotsial Demokrat. In the draft electoral platform
compiled by the C.C., published in that paper, we encounter the very same
slogans of land and freedom! Martynov’s words are mere hole-picking.

Inconclusion I would like to say a few words in regard to the Polish
comrades. A precise characterisation of the petty-bourgeois
parties may have seemed needless to some of them. Perhaps the more
acute class struggle in Poland makes it unnecessary. But to Russian
Social-Democrats it is indispensable. An exact indication of the class
nature of the Trudovik parties is most necessary as a guide for all our
propaganda and agitation. It is only on the basis of a class analysis of
these parties that we can quite definitely place before the working class
our tactical tasks—the socialist class distinction of the
proletariat, and the struggle under its leadership both against the
autocracy and the treacherous bourgeoisie. (Applause from the
Bolsheviks and the Centre.)